The Supreme Court has turned down more than two dozen requests to rehear cases that were already decided by the high court, Newsweek reported. This remedy is available only within 25 days of the high court's decision and is rarely granted.
The Supreme Court has the final say on the nation's legal battles, but litigants may have a second crack at their cases if they disagree with the court's initial decision. However, the door has closed for almost 30 cases as the court published its list on Monday.
"The Supreme Court granting a rehearing is extremely rare. There are two possible forms of a rehearing," explained University of Houston professor Alex Badas, who specializes in judicial politics.
"One after the merits decision. One after a denial of certiorari. Both are very rare," Badas added.
There are specific instances that often warrant rehearing, though it's never guaranteed. According to Badas, a rehearing is warranted if the court subsequently "issued a merits decision in another decision that changes how the Justice view the case they just denied."
That means that if a new case comes up after the court issues a writ of certiorari in a similar instance, it may warrant another look at the issue. Other instances for rehearing include cases where the justices did not participate in deciding it for one reason or another.
In one case, Samuel Alito simply didn't rule on a decision, prompting the participants to request a new hearing. In another, the litigants argued that Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Brett Kavanaugh weren't part of the decision and, therefore, deserved a second consideration.
Sometimes, it's an entire slate of liberal or conservative judges who don't participate which triggers the rehearing request. This happened in Brunson v. Sotomayor, et al., where liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Jackson were named as defendants and therefore sat out the decision.
On the conservative side, Alito and Kavanaugh, along with Justices Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice John Roberts, were named as defendants and therefore did not rule on a case that requested a rehearing. The request for rehearing was denied.
Among the cases decided this term were a pair that were quite consequential. Most notable was the court's decision on presidential immunity in Donald Trump v. United States, according to U.S. News & World Reports.
The court heard arguments from both sides about whether former President Donald Trump could be held accountable for the events of the Jan. 6, 2021 riot or whether presidential immunity applied. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court decided Trump had immunity but sent it back to the lower courts to decide exactly which actions that applied to.
In another case regarding Jan. 6, the court was asked to examine whether the government overreached when it charged upwards of 300 Trump supporters with "obstructing or impeding an official proceeding." The uprising took place against the backdrop of the certification of the 2020 presidential election that ended with Joe Biden becoming president.
The court's 6-3 decision found that the government didn't meet the threshold for charging rioters with obstruction, namely the destruction of documents, records, or objects used in the proceedings. Many of the Trump supporters charged with obstruction may now receive lighter sentences.
The Supreme Court is just as fallible as any other institution. There are remedies for the times when it decides incorrectly, but it's a difficult threshold to cross for the many who aren't pleased with the court's decisions.
